Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Federation specification implementation #376

Open
snnsnn opened this issue Jun 20, 2019 · 13 comments
Open

Federation specification implementation #376

snnsnn opened this issue Jun 20, 2019 · 13 comments
Labels
enhancement Improvement of existing features or bugfix help wanted

Comments

@snnsnn
Copy link

snnsnn commented Jun 20, 2019

I don't know if it is too early to implement federation specification in juniper but please can you add it to your road map. Basically it is a way to composable GraphQL schemas using primitives (provided by @apollo/federation package) that replaces schema stitching.

@snnsnn snnsnn added the enhancement Improvement of existing features or bugfix label Jun 20, 2019
@LegNeato
Copy link
Member

I don't think we would ever implement this as it is non-standard. Potentially we would take a PR with a an optional feature though!

@snnsnn
Copy link
Author

snnsnn commented Aug 1, 2019

Please can you consider implementing just the additions:

Federated services will need to implement the following additions to the schema to allow the gateway to use the service for execution:

scalar _Any
scalar _FieldSet

# a union of all types that use the @key directive
union _Entity

type _Service {
  sdl: String
}

extend type Query {
  _entities(representations: [_Any!]!): [_Entity]!
  _service: _Service!
}

directive @external on FIELD_DEFINITION
directive @requires(fields: _FieldSet!) on FIELD_DEFINITION
directive @provides(fields: _FieldSet!) on FIELD_DEFINITION
directive @key(fields: _FieldSet!) on OBJECT | INTERFACE

# this is an optional directive discussed below
directive @extends on OBJECT | INTERFACE

https://www.apollographql.com/docs/graphql-tools/schema-directives/

I think these additions will be enough to build federated graphql microservices.

With federation, microservices all expose a proper part of the overall graph and can refer directly to types that live in other services, without the need to add foreign keys or superfluous relationship root fields to your schema.

Federation is fully declarative and doesn't require any user code to be running in the gateway.

Execution is efficient and predictable, because it relies on a query plan generated ahead of time with full knowledge of the overall query, instead of on runtime schema delegation that gets invoked as part of normal resolver-based execution.

I would be happy to send a PR but I don't trust my Rust skills yet.

@timtonk
Copy link

timtonk commented Aug 3, 2019

Well, it's not quite true. These additions are required, but not sufficient. We still need a way to define these external keys for fields for every gql object.
Given it's not in the spec, I agree with the opinion that it must be behind the feature flag. I rather wonder would we need to wait until #138 is done.

@japrogramer
Copy link

I think that having a way to declare custom directives should be added to juniper, as it is part of the spec https://spec.graphql.org/June2018/#sec-The-__Directive-Type

@OliverEvans96
Copy link

For anyone trying to implement a federated graphql server in rust today, it looks like it's possible with async-graphql. Here's a blog post demonstrating how to do it.

@cyberhck
Copy link

cyberhck commented Aug 21, 2021

Hello maintainers, is this something you guys have in your plans? Considering federation seems to be very good way to architecture microservice graphql APIs

@tyranron
Copy link
Member

@cyberhck yes, federation is definitely in our plans. Contributions are welcome, though, as the project has quite a low bandwidth at the moment.

@cyberhck
Copy link

I actually really loved Rustlang, and wanted to give it a try with juniper, but federation is a must have for me, which is kinda why I'm not using rust at the moment, while async-graphql is supporting it, unfortunately I'm afraid both graphql servers project doesn't have enough bandwidth.

I'd love to contribute unfortunately I literally have only made hello world in rust and I think me trying to help would be worse than you guys doing it yourself, I have done a small part of federation in C# myself though, there are certain things we need to do I'm sure we can get done soon :)

@vuldin
Copy link

vuldin commented Nov 5, 2021

How does the recent license change for Apollo Federation 2 to Elastic License 2 impact future plans to have juniper support federation?

@sherodtaylor
Copy link

I'm curious of switching from golang gqlgen to rust juniper but this is a must for me as well

@cyberhck
Copy link

cyberhck commented Nov 12, 2021

I'm also using golang gqlgen right now, and I was also exactly where you are right now.

If it did support, I'd have migrated already, unfortunately I don't even know how to start to contribute 😄

@tyranron
Copy link
Member

@vuldin from what is written in the blogpost you've linked, there shouldn't be any troubles with the license, until the juniper maintainers will decide to sell it as a "managed service" 😅, which is unlikely to happen.

We would be able to keep the integration in a separate crate, where being explicit about license complications, so it would be transparent for library users to use federation or not.

@cyberhck
Copy link

does anyone have any idea on how we can get this done?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement Improvement of existing features or bugfix help wanted
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

9 participants